0.4 The art of successful school-based management  (Page 14/36)

Recently, while involved in staff development for assistant principals, it became clear to the author that thesystemic configuration in the schools inhibited, or prohibited, the proper application of leadership functions. Put bluntly, schoolleadership has assumed so many different roles in the building that some leaders felt they were not doing any of the jobs very well. Infact, based on recent research with practicing assistant principals (Kelehear, 2005) the author and participants reconstructed theleadership position so that myriad responsibilities might be separated into two categories, for two different positions. Insteadof one position in charge of both management and leadership, there would be the Manager of Programs (MP) for administration and theInstructional Leader (IL) for instructional supervision. Being in charge in today’s schools continues to be a daunting task. Given the competing demands of federal mandates, state assessments,standardized-testing schedules, shrinking revenue streams, and the like, it is no small wonder that children and teaching somehow getlost in the shuffle.

It is clear from the literature (Sergiovanni, 1999; Smith&Piele, 1989; Glickman, Gordon,&Ross-Gordon, 2004; Sergiovanni&Starratt, 2002; Fullan, 2001; Starratt, 2004; Robbins&Alvy, 2003) that principals are called upon to do a myriad of jobs. It is a challenging task for principals tooffer instructional leadership and also manage the other competing responsibilities. In much the same way as a teacher must be asuccessful manager of classroom behavior in order to be able to teach, the school leader must be able to manage the school so thatinstruction can take place. But to ask one person to manage all the business of schooling and also to conduct instructional supervisionmight be an unrealistic expectation. In working with 14 administrators, the author began to imagine that by separating theinstructional supervision function from the principal’s responsibility, then maybe another teacher leader could more fullysupervise instruction in our schools (Kelehear, 2005). The role of instructional supervision would rest with someone whose primaryresponsibility was instructional development. Managing all other affairs of schooling such as budgets, parent conferences, anddiscipline would reside with the principal’s position. The Manager of Programs (MP) was responsible for all matters of schoolgovernance and management with the exception of instructional leadership.

The Instructional Leader (IL) would conduct all instructional programs relative to evaluation, supervision,induction, remediation, and instructional staff development. This job would carry with it a supervisory supplement that wouldrecognize the lead teacher’s supervisory responsibilities. The school would have an instructional committee whose responsibilityit would be to select an IL who may or may not be a member of the committee. The IL’s appointment would be 3 years. The IL would function as a part of the instructional committee but leadershipwithin the committee would reside with a different person. One way to imagine the organization is to imagine an elected school boardwith an appointed superintendent. The committee will have representatives from grade levels for elementary schools or fromsubject areas for high schools. Middle schools would have instructional committees drawn from teams.